Sometimes it's about searching a preexisting database or set of constraints. In that case there may or may not be input but it's not as important.

But then how come we can represent this concept in a form without boxes and lines? See python, C++, javascript, etc.

As other people have said, boxes and lines is another way of representing order, or sequential steps. You can also do that in text.

But you're right that there are other ways. Scratch is an example. But most programming languages are relatively close to math notation, and that appears to be convenient for us.

If you want to see a programming language that works entirely differently, yet still has a graphical representation alternative in boxes and lines, look at CSound. It's an (old) language for generating sound, but its representation is different.

Lines of code are essentially doing the same thing as boxes and arrows. It's just a different representation of the same idea. You can see pretty direct translations in programming languages like Scratch, Unreal Blueprints, and Godot 3's visual scripting. As well as logical implementations in tools like Davinci Resolve Fusion.

I think most programmers find this logic easier to type out than to "draw" in a graph, but it's conceptually the same thing.

The functions and objects are the boxes, them calling each other are the lines =)

Because the boxes and lines are just an abstraction.

No the text is the abstraction. Or perhaps neither is the abstraction and they are just equivalent concepts like how uno is the same thing as one. Uno is spanish, one is English… there is no hierarchy where one concept is an abstraction over the other.

The main point of my post is to suggest that there are other equivalent concepts between text and box/line.

I think we are operating on different definitions of abstractions/concepts, here. My guess is you are trying to invoke a very specific meaning of "abstraction" in another context.

To note, most text is a symbolic representation of spoken words and words are abstractions of any number of things. Both physical things such as "running" and less physical things such as "thinking." (Yes, legographic texts exist, such that they may not be representing spoken words, but I fail to see how that changes things here?)

Both are abstractions. They’re just different types of abstractions. Your question makes no sense.

Abstractions go over things. An abstraction is something fundamentally layered on top of another thing. Two things cannot be abstractions of each other. If you encounter such a concept and you still think they are both abstractions then it is you who is not making sense.

I didn’t say the text is an abstraction of the boxes so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’m sorry I can’t help you. Truly I’m really sorry and I apologize that I can’t help you. Thanks you reading. Good bye.